Ravi Sood vs. Jiwan Negi Cr. Appeal No. 4117 of 2013 23.04.2026 Present: Mr Rahul Gathania, Advocate, vice Mr Het Ram Thakur, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr Sumeet Raj Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. Cr. MP No. 921 of 2026 The present application has been filed for recalling of the non-bailable warrants of arrest issued on 8.1.2026 by the Court. It is asserted that the applicant was served on 9.4.2014. The learned counsel attempted to contact the applicant, but could not contact him telephonically. He informed the Court that he had no instruction, and the Court issued a bailable warrant for securing the presence of the applicant. The applicant could not be served through bailable warrants, and the Court issued non-bailable warrants of arrest to secure his presence before the court. The serving officer reported that the applicant had left the address for a long time, and a proclamation was ordered to be issued. The address furnished by the complainant is not the correct address. The applicant is a permanent resident of District Kullu, but had to leave his permanent address in connection with his work. The applicant was in Arunachal Pradesh and Guwahati. He never absconded. Hence the application. No reply to the application has been filed. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and have gone through the records carefully. The record shows that the appeal was admitted on 11.9.2013. The appeal came up for hearing on 18.7.2025 when the learned counsel pleaded no instructions. The applicant was earlier served at the address village and Post Office, Katrain, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. The applicant did not dispute that he was a permanent resident of Kullu. He claimed that he had left his permanent address in connection with his job. He has not provided any explanation as to why he has not furnished the latest address to the Court. The record also shows that the applicant has also not furnished the personal and surety bonds as per the requirement of Section 390 of the Cr.PC. The purpose of issuing non-bailable warrants of arrest was to secure the presence of the applicant. The applicant was acquitted by the learned Trial Court and is not to be committed to prison unless he defaults in furnishing the bail bonds or his conduct is such as would show that his presence cannot be secured without committing him to prison. The applicant has himself appeared before the Court which shows that he would abide by the terms and conditions that the Court may impose. Therefore, the present application is allowed, and the non-bailable warrants of arrest and the proclamation issued by the Court to secure the applicant’s presence are ordered to be recalled, subject to the applicant’s furnishing his latest address and personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹50,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, undertaking therein to appear before this Court as and when called upon to do so, and surrender before the learned Trial Court in case of the acceptance of the appeal. The aforesaid bail bonds, if furnished before the learned Trial Court, shall be remitted to this Court for record immediately. The present application stands disposed of. Cr. Appeal No. 4117 of 2013 List for hearing in due course. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 23rd April, 2026 (Chander)